When a theory has lost its anchoring in phenomena, yet continues to generate rich mathematical structure and aesthetic satisfaction, a peculiar outcome follows. Meaning no longer converges. It multiplies.
This is the mechanism of interpretative proliferation.
Interpretative proliferation occurs when a single formal framework supports an expanding array of incompatible accounts of “what is really going on,” with no principled way to decide among them. Disagreement does not signal a problem to be solved. It becomes a stable feature of the landscape.
Meaning without constraint
In non-pathological theory-building, interpretation plays a limited role. Competing ways of understanding a formalism are constrained by phenomena. Some interpretations make contact; others fail. Over time, the space of viable meanings narrows.
When phenomenological constraint is absent, interpretation is liberated from consequence.
The mathematics continues to function perfectly well, but it no longer privileges any particular construal. The formalism underdetermines its own meaning, and nothing external steps in to close the gap. Interpretation becomes a matter of emphasis, taste, or metaphysical temperament rather than explanatory adequacy.
Why interpretations proliferate rather than converge
Interpretative proliferation is often described as an embarrassment of riches: so many ways of understanding the same theory, each illuminating a different aspect. This framing misses the structural point.
Interpretations proliferate not because the theory is too deep, but because it is insufficiently constrained.
When a formal system is tightly coupled to phenomena, most interpretative moves are simply wrong. They misdescribe events, mispredict outcomes, or fail to generalise. Only a narrow band survives.
When that coupling is loosened or absent, the opposite occurs. Almost any coherent story that can be mapped onto the mathematics is permitted. Interpretations accumulate rather than compete.
The illusion of pluralism
From within a pathological framework, interpretative diversity is often celebrated as openness.
Pluralism is taken as a sign of conceptual fertility. The theory is said to be so rich that it supports multiple ontological visions at once. Calls for resolution are dismissed as premature or philosophically naïve.
But this pluralism is deceptive.
The interpretations do not disagree about the world. They disagree about how to talk about a formalism whose relation to the world is already indeterminate. The disagreement is therefore insulated from empirical settlement.
What looks like tolerance is, in fact, stalemate.
Interpretation as substitute for theory development
As interpretative activity expands, it begins to take over the role once played by theory-building itself.
Instead of refining the conditions under which a framework would instantiate, effort is redirected toward redescribing the same formal object in ever more elaborate conceptual vocabularies. New interpretations promise insight, depth, or reconciliation, while leaving the underlying relation to phenomena unchanged.
Interpretation becomes a way of doing something without taking on new epistemic risk.
In this sense, interpretative proliferation is a downstream effect of surrogate success. It allows intellectual labour to continue productively within a closed symbolic system.
Why debates never end
One of the most recognisable symptoms of interpretative proliferation is the endurance of debate.
Decades pass. Positions harden. Generations of researchers inherit allegiances. Yet no decisive argument ever lands. Each side can claim internal coherence, mathematical adequacy, and aesthetic appeal.
This persistence is not accidental. It is structurally guaranteed.
Without a shared site of instantiation, there is no mechanism for convergence. The debate is not unresolved; it is unresolvable on the terms in which it is conducted.
The rhetorical inflation of “interpretation”
As interpretation takes on increased importance, the term itself inflates.
What once named a provisional bridge between formalism and phenomenon comes to name a comprehensive metaphysical stance. Interpretations acquire ontological ambitions disproportionate to their evidential footing. They promise to tell us what exists, what is fundamental, and how reality is structured — all without encountering an event.
The language of interpretation thus masks a deeper absence. It fills the space where instantiation should have been.
Looking ahead
Interpretative proliferation marks a turning point. The theory is now rich in meanings but poor in contact. Disagreement is permanent, pluralism is stable, and critique loses traction.
In the next part of this series, we will turn to the last stabilising mechanism: linguistic drift and rhetorical immunity. Here we will see how key terms stretch, blur, and slide in order to protect pathological frameworks from external challenge.
At that point, pathology becomes self-sealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment